Singh v Singh and the unlikelihood of a heresy trial in the British courts

Mr Hardeep Singh (Defendant) had written an article in the Sikh Times questioning the religious validity etc of His Holiness Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj (Claimant), accusing him of being the leader of a Cult a Blasphemer and of engaging in religious practices which were incompatible with Sikhism. In response Jeet Singh sued Hardeep Singh for Libel.

Mr Justice Eady, in his judgement, pointed out that on what was intended to be the first day of the trial,

a preliminary issue has to be resolved on the second defendant's application to stay the claim, either wholly or in part, as being non-justiciable

He then said:

That issue was pleaded in the defence on 16th November 2007 and is founded on the well-known principle of English law to the effect that the courts will not attempt to rule upon doctrinal issues or intervene in the regulation or governance of religious groups. That is partly because the courts are secular and stand back from religious issues while according respect to the rights of those who are adherents or worshippers in any such grouping. It is also partly because such disputes as arise between the followers of any given religious faith are often likely to involve doctrines or beliefs which do not readily lend themselves to the sort of resolution which is the normal function of a judicial tribunal. They may involve questions of faith or doctrinal opinion which cannot be finally determined by the methodology regularly brought to bear on conflicts of factual and expert evidence. Thus it can be seen to be partly a matter of a self-denying ordinance, applied as a matter of public policy, and partly a question of simply recognising the natural and inevitable limitations upon the judicial function.

Later in the judgement, an number of precedents were cited.

In the case of R v Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of Great Britain and the Commonwealth Ex p. Wachmann [1992] 1WLR 1036, the decision of Simon Brown J (as he then was) contained the following passage:

"... the court is hardly in a position to regulate what is essentially a religious function - the determination whether someone is morally and religiously fit to carry out the spiritual and pastoral duties of his office. The court must inevitably be wary of entering so self-evidently sensitive an area, straying across the well-recognised divide between church and state.

One cannot, therefore, escape the conclusion that if judicial review lies here, then one way or another this secular court must inevitably be drawn into adjudicating upon matters intimate to a religious community".

"In short, the issues raised involve an examination of religious law and the custom and traditions of a particular local religious community which the court is not competent to undertake".

That judgment was ultimately upheld by the Court of Appeal reported at [1994] COD, page 142.

More recently, there was the decision of Gray J. in Blake v Associated Newspapers [2003] EWHC 1960 (QB). At paragraph 21 the learned judge said this,

"It is well established ... that the court will not venture into doctrinal disputes or differences. But there is authority that the courts will not regulate issues as to the procedures adopted by religious bodies or the customs and practices of a particular religious community or questions as to the moral and religious fitness of a person to carry out the spiritual and pastoral duties of his office".

In short, m'learned friends at the Queen's Bench would be unlikely to accept the task of adjudicating whether it is or is not defamatory to call Mgr Basil Loftus a heretic, or whether there is a defence of justification, i.e. that the statement is true; or of fair comment, i.e. that it was an expression of opinion, based upon true facts, made in good faith and without malice. (For further information on the law of libel and slander as it relates to the media, see Carter-Ruck Media Law Questions and Answers.)

Popular posts from this blog

I am happy to pass on the following information concerning the forthcoming Colloquium of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend myself this time, but I pass on the notice with my support and recommendation.
Booking is now open for the Autumn Colloquium of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, which this year takes place at the National Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham, from Wednesday 15th till Thursday 16th November.

Speakers include Bishop John Keenan of Paisley, Monsignor John Armitage (Rector of the Shrine at Walsingham) and Father John Saward.

Dilexit Prior in Letters from a Young Catholic asked some useful questions today about indulgences. I thought it would be best to do a post here especially to cover the controversial question of detachment from venial sin. But first the other questions:

The conditions for gaining a plenary indulgencePope Paul VI set down a number of norms relating to indulgences at the end of Indulgentiarum Doctrina. Norm 7 states:To acquire a plenary indulgence it is necessary to perform the work to which the indulgence is attached and to fulfil three conditions: sacramental confession, Eucharistic Communion and prayer for the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff. It is further required that all attachment to sin, even to venial sin, be absent. If this disposition is in any way less than complete, or if the prescribed three conditions are not fulfilled, the indulgence will be only partial, except for the provisions contained in n.11 for those who are “impeded.”It is worth reading the other norms because …

The Great Cloister of St Hugh's, Parkminster is the largest in the world. The photograph below shows part of two sides of the Great Cloister with the cells attached:

The next photo shows the door to the cell I was given. Each cell has a text on the door: mine was "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also". To the right of the door is the hatch where the brothers leave food and any other items such as toiletries, light bulbs etc. that have been requested.

Inside is a spacious ambulacrum with windows onto the enclosed garden. There is thus room for the monk to take exercise if the weather prevents him from walking in the garden. The stairs go up to the main living quarters and down to the work area and garden. To the left of the cell door, you can see the inside door of the hatch.

Here is a view of the ambulacrum from the stairs:

Upstairs, the first room in the main part of the cell is called the Ave Maria.

I am trying to pray the Office each day. Should I only use the official breviary or can I use the Little Office of Our Lady?
The second Vatican Council encouraged lay people to pray the Divine Office; indeed the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy encouraged parish priests to see that Vespers are celebrated in Churches on Sundays, something that is quite rare nowadays. So it is an excellent practice for you as a lay person to pray at least a part of the Office. By doing so, you unite yourself to the whole Church in the prayer which Christ offers up as our High Priest. It is rightly called a sacrifice of praise when we pray the psalms to sanctify the hours of the day.

Priests and religious are bound to celebrate the Divine Office every day and must use the Office that is approved for them. Secular priests, for example, must use either the Liturgy of the Hours (the Office that was composed after Vatican II) or the older breviary that was approved before the Council. Lay people who are no…

This morning one of the seminarians drove me to the Church of St Aloysius in Caulfield where Bishop Meeking celebrated Pontifical High Mass, arranged by the parish in anticipation of the diamond jubilee of his priestly ordination on the 19th of July 1953.

Fr Tattersall, the parish priest, was Assistant Priest, Fr Marshall was Deacon, I was Subdeacon and seminarians were (very competent) first and second MCs. In my case, they needed to be competent since I'm not very familiar with the ceremonies and have to be guided quite a bit.

Fr Tattersall preached a fine sermon on the priesthood with particular reference to St Maximilian Kolbe who went to begin his slow martyrdom at Auschwitz with the words "I am a Catholic priest."